1 👥 Cohort Description
Age and Sex Distribution
Cohort Overview
| Characteristic | N = 1471 |
|---|---|
| Age | – |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | 37 (34, 44) |
| Unknown | 13 |
| Age group | – |
| age ≥15-<25 | 1/134 (0.7%) |
| age ≥25-<35 | 45/134 (34%) |
| age ≥35-<45 | 62/134 (46%) |
| age ≥45-<55 | 19/134 (14%) |
| age ≥55 | 7/134 (5.2%) |
| Unknown | 13 |
| Sex | – |
| Female | 38/134 (28%) |
| Male | 96/134 (72%) |
| Unknown | 13 |
| Period | – |
| First Three Days | 74/147 (50%) |
| Last Two Days | 73/147 (50%) |
| Years of Professional Experience | – |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | 11 (8, 17) |
| Unknown | 13 |
| Experience in VHF Response | 101/134 (75%) |
| Unknown | 13 |
| The IDTM is an Advantage to the Systems Used in the Past | 117/121 (97%) |
| Unknown | 26 |
| Envisioning Usage of IDMT in the Future | – |
| Yes | 121/121 (100%) |
| Unknown | 26 |
| 1 n/N (%) | |
Cohort by Period
| Characteristic | Overall N = 1471 |
First Three Days N = 741 |
Last Two Days N = 731 |
p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | – | – | – | 0.67 |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | 37 (34, 44) | 37 (34, 43) | 37 (34, 44) | – |
| Unknown | 13 | 8 | 5 | – |
| Age group | – | – | – | 0.89 |
| age ≥15-<25 | 1/134 (0.7%) | 1/66 (1.5%) | 0/68 (0%) | – |
| age ≥25-<35 | 45/134 (34%) | 22/66 (33%) | 23/68 (34%) | – |
| age ≥35-<45 | 62/134 (46%) | 32/66 (48%) | 30/68 (44%) | – |
| age ≥45-<55 | 19/134 (14%) | 8/66 (12%) | 11/68 (16%) | – |
| age ≥55 | 7/134 (5.2%) | 3/66 (4.5%) | 4/68 (5.9%) | – |
| Unknown | 13 | 8 | 5 | – |
| Sex | – | – | – | 0.78 |
| Female | 38/134 (28%) | 18/66 (27%) | 20/68 (29%) | – |
| Male | 96/134 (72%) | 48/66 (73%) | 48/68 (71%) | – |
| Unknown | 13 | 8 | 5 | – |
| Years of Professional Experience | – | – | – | 0.66 |
| Median (Q1, Q3) | 11 (8, 17) | 11 (8, 17) | 12 (8, 18) | – |
| Unknown | 13 | 8 | 5 | – |
| Experience in VHF Response | 101/134 (75%) | 50/66 (76%) | 51/68 (75%) | 0.92 |
| Unknown | 13 | 8 | 5 | – |
| The IDTM is an Advantage to the Systems Used in the Past | 117/121 (97%) | 58/61 (95%) | 59/60 (98%) | 0.62 |
| Unknown | 26 | 13 | 13 | – |
| Envisioning Usage of IDMT in the Future | – | – | – | – |
| Yes | 121/121 (100%) | 61/61 (100%) | 60/60 (100%) | – |
| Unknown | 26 | 13 | 13 | – |
| 1 n/N (%) | ||||
| 2 Wilcoxon rank sum test; Fisher’s exact test; Pearson’s Chi-squared test | ||||
2 📊 Survey
Overall
First Three Days
Last Two Days
3 🧰 Statistical Evaluation
We used an ordinal logistic regression model to account for the ordered nature of the response scale. This allowed us to estimate the likelihood of each response level across time periods or experience in VHF response and visualize these shifts using the predicted probability plot.
3.1 ⏰ By Period
3.1.1 Overall
Observed Response
Overall, people were slightly more likely to give higher ratings in the Last Two Days (p-value = 0.14).
Predicted Probabilities
The predicted probability plot shows the estimated likelihood of each response level across time periods, as modeled by ordinal logistic regression. It visually illustrates how respondents’ preferences shifted between periods, accounting for the ordered nature of the response scale.
3.1.2 By Variables
Significance of Period Effect by Question
Observed Response by Variable
Annoying – Enjoyable
Not understandable – Understandable
Creative – Dull
Easy to learn – Difficult to learn
Valuable – Inferior
Boring – Exciting
Not interesting – Interesting
Unpredictable – Predictable
Fast - Slow
Inventive – Conventional
Obstructive – Supportive
Good – Bad
Complicated – Easy
Unlikable – Pleasing
Usual – Leading edge
Unpleasant – Pleasant
Secure – Not secure
Motivating – Demotivating
Meets expectations – Does not meet expectations
Inefficiant – Efficient
Clear – Confusing
Impractical – Practical
Organized – Cluttered
Attractive – Unattractive
Friendly – Unfriendly
Conservative – Innovative
Predited Probabilities by Variable
Annoying – Enjoyable
Not understandable – Understandable
Creative – Dull
Easy to learn – Difficult to learn
Valuable – Inferior
Boring – Exciting
Not interesting – Interesting
Unpredictable – Predictable
Fast - Slow
Inventive – Conventional
Obstructive – Supportive
Good – Bad
Complicated – Easy
Unlikable – Pleasing
Usual – Leading edge
Unpleasant – Pleasant
Secure – Not secure
Motivating – Demotivating
Meets expectations – Does not meet expectations
Inefficiant – Efficient
Clear – Confusing
Impractical – Practical
Organized – Cluttered
Attractive – Unattractive
Friendly – Unfriendly
Conservative – Innovative
3.2 👨🏽⚕️Experience in VHF Response
3.2.1 Overall
Observed Response
Overall, there was no difference in rating between participants with and without previous experience in VHF response (p-value = 0.33).
Predicted Probabilities
The predicted probability plot shows the estimated likelihood of each response level by experience in VHF Response, as modeled by ordinal logistic regression. It visually illustrates how respondents’ preferences differed between participants with and without experience in VHF response, accounting for the ordered nature of the response scale.
3.2.2 By Variables
Significance of experience Effect by Question
Observed Response by Variable
Annoying – Enjoyable
Not understandable – Understandable
Creative – Dull
Easy to learn – Difficult to learn
Valuable – Inferior
Boring – Exciting
Not interesting – Interesting
Unpredictable – Predictable
Fast - Slow
Inventive – Conventional
Obstructive – Supportive
Good – Bad
Complicated – Easy
Unlikable – Pleasing
Usual – Leading edge
Unpleasant – Pleasant
Secure – Not secure
Motivating – Demotivating
Meets expectations – Does not meet expectations
Inefficiant – Efficient
Clear – Confusing
Impractical – Practical
Organized – Cluttered
Attractive – Unattractive
Friendly – Unfriendly
Conservative – Innovative
Predited Probabilities by Variable
Annoying – Enjoyable
Not understandable – Understandable
Creative – Dull
Easy to learn – Difficult to learn
Valuable – Inferior
Boring – Exciting
Not interesting – Interesting
Unpredictable – Predictable
Fast - Slow
Inventive – Conventional
Obstructive – Supportive
Good – Bad
Complicated – Easy
Unlikable – Pleasing
Usual – Leading edge
Unpleasant – Pleasant
Secure – Not secure
Motivating – Demotivating
Meets expectations – Does not meet expectations
Inefficiant – Efficient
Clear – Confusing
Impractical – Practical
Organized – Cluttered
Attractive – Unattractive
Friendly – Unfriendly
Conservative – Innovative
